Jerone Corsi, Ph. D. is about to drop another bombshell, casting further doubt on the stories of President Obama's birth.

Dr. Corsi, whose doctorate is from Harvard, is an excellent researcher and investigative journalist. He was the driving force behind the Swift Boat veterans telling the truth about War Phony John Kerry. He is also the author of "Obamanation."

In his latest research, to be splashed on WND early next week, Dr. Corsi will reveal that he has documentary evidence that the mother of Barack Obama Jr., Ms Stanley A. Durham-Soetoro, began evening classes at the University of Washington in Seattle on August 19, 1961. This is just 15 days after she supposedly gave birth to President Obama in Hawaii.

We are expected to believe that in just15 days, she gave birth, stayed in the hospital for a few days, them packed her things and left her house in Hawaii, moved to Seattle, got established there, registered for, then began classed in Seattle, all the while caring for her newborn.

The new evidence also destroys another Obama legend-lie. According to the Presidents autobiography, Obama Sr. and Durhan-Soetoro were supposedly deeply in love and made a happy home together in Hawaii, complete with their baby, until Obama Sr. had to move to Boston to attend Harvard and could not afford take Stanley and baby Barack with him.

According to Dr. Corsis new written evidence, Durham-Soetoro was in college classes, thousands of miles away from Hawaii and did not return to the islands until long Obama Sr. left for Harvard.

Dr. Corsi also reveals that a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth requires no proof of any kind and could simply be issued on the sworn statement of one parent.

All of this simply adds to the fast growing uncertainty and suspicion over Obamas supposed birth stories. Is August 4, 1961, his real birth date? Where was he really born? When he traveled to the Middle East in the 1990s, he did not have a US passport. What country issued him a passport, and why? Why wont he release the one document that would answer all the questions?

Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(a) INA provided:

1) a blood relationship between the applicant and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;

2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the applicant’s birth;

3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the applicant reaches the age of 18 years, and

4) while the person is under the age of 18 years —

A) applicant is legitimated under the law of their residence or domicile,

B) father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or

C) the paternity of the applicant is established by adjudication court.

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

2. In every state I know of, the husband of the mother is the legal father, quite apart from issues of actual biological paternity. In most states this assumption cannot be overturned even with indisputable DNA evidence.

Wrong. The Democrat Party had to approve that nomination, at the convention, and they did so. Besides, Bidens name was ON THE BALLOT, and the electors of the several states voted for Obama and Biden in sufficient numbers.

Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required. Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(a) INA provided:

1) a blood relationship between the applicant and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;

2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the applicant's birth;

3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the applicant reaches the age of 18 years, and

4) while the person is under the age of 18 years —

A) applicant is legitimated under the law of their residence or domicile,

B) father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or

C) the paternity of the applicant is established by adjudication court.

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

I agree with you, but a whole bunch of people around here don't. To them there are three classes of US citizens:

1. Natural-born citizen at birth.

2.Citizen at birth but not natural-born.

3. Naturalized.

The criteria for #2 varies wildly between posters.

I've yet to see anything from US law or administrative decisions that would constitute proof category 2 exists. Those arguing for such a category usually fall back on quotes from an 18-century Swiss lawyer who was talking about civil law, not even the English common law on which the US legal system is based.

I am sorry you are wrong. The 14th Amendment was created and needed to define Citizenship by Birth vs. who needs to be naturalized. This is a wholely separate discussion than in Article II of the constitution which was intended to apply to an extreme select few individuals who might be placed in a position of supreme authority in our country. In this situation, the founding fathers went back to doctrine existing at that time, to define who would be elegible and they thought one of the most important criteria was undivided allegiance to the United States.

I could go into this in detail once again, but it will be like the 50th or 60th time. DO SOME RESEARCH before wagging your finger at folks.

Heck read the blinking article I cited where the Washington post goes into this without a single reference to the 14th Amendment because it just doesn't apply. They try to vague it up a bit, but there are great sources about this in the various threads here.

Id like to see a reference to US law in 1961 that the child of a US citizen and a foreign citizen is not born a US citizen. I suspect this is inaccurate.

Ask and you shall receive. 8 USC 1401 Nationals and citizens of United States at birth. Be sure to see the notes section (link on the right in the box), the notes section says the eligibility for passing on US citizenship by the US Citizen parent was changed in 1986 from 10 total years of residency in the US, with 5 of those being after the person's 14th birthday, to 5 and 2 years respectively, as it currently is. .

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; ...(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years

Stanly Ann was only 18 on Aug. 4, 1961, and for few months after that as well. She needed to be 19, under subsection g) listed above as it existed in '61.

The law also provides, redundantly restating part of the 14th amendment, that persons born in the US and subject to it's jurisdiction are citizens at birth. But remember though that the law only deals with citizenship, not natural born citizenship, the definition of which Congress has no power to change, under their power to define a uniform rule of naturalization

166
posted on 08/09/2009 12:04:16 AM PDT
by El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)

BOTH of McCains Parents were old enough to pass AUTOMATIC citizenship to John McCain, even if McCain had been born on Mars

Wrong, and this is old news, it comes from 2008 and isn't worth whining or crying about. And, just understand, you are in the company of a great number of folks who just aren't bothering to do their research and go off blazing without a single thought of actually asking the important questions and finding the answers that are out there for anyone to find who cares.

Whereas, I am in the camp of folks who are too lazy to have all of these citations to jam into a post to you without spending 15 minutes for each fool who comes up with the same wrong interpretation of the same laws written up to nearly hundreds of years after Article II was put in place.

To find out what this means, you have to look to who wrote it and find what they say they meant. Then you know.

The 14th Amendment is completely irrelevant and not helpful in this debate. It simply does NOT apply. The 14th Amendment was written to grant rights to former slaves. It is INCLUSIVE. It is NOT EXCLUSIVE.

NOWHERE does the Amendment state that there are not other ways to gain citizenship.

NOWHERE does the 14th Amendment say that Congress can not make laws that include other methods of gaining citizenship.

" It is still possible that the couple was estranged by the time the baby was born and she had been making plans to split asap after the birth. But the love story thing is obviously an Onama fiction. "

It sounds more and more like a one night stands drunken infatuation of the “ white woman “ then anything else..

I’m sorry you dislike my style. I believe it’s called accurate, but you apparently prefer another term.

I still find your claim that someone else is his biological father odd, to say the least. Even if true, who cares? I dislike the guy intensely, and I don’t care in the least who impregnated his mother.

Has the paternity of any other president or presidential candidate ever been challenged?

Only naturalized citizenship. It's in the Constitution, you've heard of that I'm sure. Specifically Article I, Section 8 which reads in part;

The Congress shall have Power...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

Nothing in section 8 or anywhere else about Congress setting standards for citizenship. The 14th amendment to the constitution does say that

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

While Article II section 1 says in part

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

You may assume that "citizen at birth" is the same as "natural born citizen", but no Court has ruled on that subject, with regards to 14th amendment citizens at birth. Nor on exactly what "natural born citizen" might mean, well except for one case where a baby born in the US of Naturalized parents from Sweden, was declared a natural born citizen, even though when she was about 4 her mother took her to Sweden, joined later by her father, and they never returned to the US, although she did. However it was really only her citizenship was in question in the case. It was the DC Circuit that declared her natural born, while the Supreme Court upheld her citizenship, directing the Secretary of State to admit her and issue her a US Passport. Elg was her last name.

177
posted on 08/09/2009 12:15:59 AM PDT
by El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)

If you are going to post something this explosive—make sure you have all the facts right! Your silly errors have made your finding invalid and given fuel to the Anti-Birthers. In the future—take your time and have someone check over your text before posting. What was Sydney studying at college? Did she get a grade? Was she and Obama married or not? (I think not) We need to collect more facts before we run them up the flagpole.

BOTH of McCains Parents were old enough to pass AUTOMATIC citizenship to John McCain, even if McCain had been born on Mars.

Well, maybe, but the law was differnent in 1936 than it was after 1952. Also citizenship is not enough, it must be natural born citizenship. The provisions of the law, which was passed by Congress under it's power to define a uniform rule of naturalization, can't redefine "natural born citizenship". However with both McCain's parents being citizens, and if he was, as he and his mother both claim, born on the Navy Base at Coco Solo, then that was on territory under complete US control, at the time, and thus he likely met the Natural Born citizen requirement. If however he was born in Colon Panama, then he was citizen due to the law, but perhaps not a natural born citizen.

182
posted on 08/09/2009 12:22:44 AM PDT
by El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)

Under the 14th Amendment, as interpreted to date by courts, you were a citizen at birth.

Some argue there is a distinction between citizen at birth and natural born citizen, but such a distinction has never been recognized by US courts or administrative agencies.

I’m not saying such a distinction couldn’t exist, just that its existence has never been recognized and it seems highly unlikely to me that any court would recognize such a distinction given the literally explosive implications.

In fact, in one of the Supreme Court decisions that is relevant, one of the dissenters complained that the majority decision would mean a child of two Chinese coolies born in this country would be eligible to be president.

Since the majority overruled him, they implicitly agreed that this child of two foreign nationals (of unpopular race at the time) was indeed a natural-born citizen.

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a naturalborn citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President;

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

187
posted on 08/09/2009 12:35:42 AM PDT
by El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)

If true, it means John McCain (born in a Panama hospital outside the Canal Zone) was born with dual US and Panamanian citizenship. Which is utterly irrelevant to his position under US law. He could be a citizen of 50 countries under their laws, and US law doesn't care. We don't recognize their citizenship rules as affecting the status of a US citizen.

There are only TWO ways to get citizenship, you either gain it when you are born, (or adopted)

You don't gain it automatically by adoption. See the link I gave above, it has a section on adoption as well, which states:

Adoption of an alien minor by an American does not confer U.S. citizenship on the child. Adoption, however, is one way in which a U.S. citizen father can legitimate his natural child born out of wedlock for purposes of transmitting citizenship

190
posted on 08/09/2009 12:42:44 AM PDT
by El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)

I said, if they were married, and you give me the rules for out of wedlock births. I looked all this stuff up nearly a year ago, and while I may have to find the citations again, I remember what I found. Not that I trust to the memory, I look it up again.

IIRC, I was responding to the assertion that if the mother is a citizen, then so is the baby, regardless of where born. That was an absolute statement, and I showed that in some casese, it's just not true. Doesn't have much to do with "natural born" however, per the State department link I provided in two posts above, plus a simple reading of the Constitution's delegation of powers to Congress.

192
posted on 08/09/2009 12:48:39 AM PDT
by El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)

NOWHERE does the 14th Amendment say that Congress can not make laws that include other methods of gaining citizenship

But they can. However since they only have the power to define rules for naturalization, any methods they pass as a matter of statute law, necessarily define only naturalized citizenship. The Constitution, as made clear by the 10th amendment, declares that Congress only has those powers delegated to it, and is sometimes forbidden to exercise those powers in certain ways, such as to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But just because a power is not forbidden to Congress does not mean they have it. Even most states don't work that way anymore, although they once did.

193
posted on 08/09/2009 12:52:50 AM PDT
by El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)

If there is no hospital named, there should be an address or other description of where he was born. Someone has to sign as witness to the birth, in place of a doctor or midwife, someone like Grandma Toot.

196
posted on 08/09/2009 12:56:20 AM PDT
by El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)

She got a B and three As in the four extension course she took in Autumn and Winter of 61-62 (two each quarter). (Extension as opposed to correspondence, means night and weekend classes, often taught by "adjunct" professors, or grad students).

She took "Modern Government" (the B), Anthropology, Intro to the Study of Man, Philosphy, Intro to Logic, and History, History of Africa South.

In the Spring term of '62 she took, "Chinese Civilization" and "History of Modern Philosophy". She seems to have gotten "B" in both of those, but they don't put the letter grade, rather the numerical "points", which I assume is the number of semester hours times the numerical grade, "15" in each case, which I think means a B for a 5 quarter hour course. Also in spring of '62, it looks like she signed up for English Political and Social History, but withdrew, passing)

198
posted on 08/09/2009 1:07:36 AM PDT
by El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)

If true, it means John McCain (born in a Panama hospital outside the Canal Zone) was born with dual US and Panamanian citizenship. Which is utterly irrelevant to his position under US law. He could be a citizen of 50 countries under their laws, and US law doesn't care. We don't recognize their citizenship rules as affecting the status of a US citizen.

While true, our laws do concern themselves with place of birth and citizenship of the parents, but only to the extent of US verses "other". (some slight complication for persons born in and as children of citizens of places like American Samoa. Saomans are US Nationals but not US Citizens.)

200
posted on 08/09/2009 1:11:40 AM PDT
by El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.